Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat weblog has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, info-tech and privacy/confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. The team is David Brophy, Birgit Clark, Merpel, Jeremy Phillips, Eleonora Rosati, Darren Smyth, Annsley Merelle Ward and Neil J. Wilkof. You're welcome to read, post comments and participate in our community. You can email the Kats here

For the half-year to 30 June 2015, the IPKat's regular team is supplemented by contributions from guest bloggers Suleman Ali, Tom Ohta and Valentina Torelli.

Regular round-ups of the previous week's blogposts are kindly compiled by Alberto Bellan.

Monday, 18 February 2013

Our readers may recall the case of Marcus Orff (spelled like the famous composer of the same name, see IPKat post here), a German dubbing actor who lent his voice to Johnny Depp (playing Jack Sparrow) in the German language version ofPirates of the Caribbean. In an appeal arising from a case initially decided by the Berliner Kammergerichtin 2011 (case reference 24 U 2/10 of 29 June 2011) the German Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) had to decide on Mr Orff’s claim for additional compensation based on §32a(2)of the German Copyright Act (UrhG).

By way of background: §32a UrhG provides for so-called “fairness compensation” in cases where there is a disproportion between the fee paid and the success of the work or creation. Bearing in mind the success of the Pirates of the Caribbean movie franchise at the German box office, as well as its related DVD releases and the TV licensing of the films, Mr Orff was of the view that his fee of roughly 18,000 Euros was not a fair consideration for his contribution: as the German voice of the lead actor he had made a decisive contribution and should therefore be paid a supplemental fee of 180,000 Euros. Even though §32a UrhG expressly refers to 'authors' it is also applicable to performers, see §79(2)(2) UrhG. Under German copyright law, performers (such as actors and dubbing actors) can be considered as authors provided that their creative contribution to a work amounts to an intellectual creation in its own right. In this case, however, the only question to be decided was whether the compensation received by Mr Orff was adequate.

A great cinema? Somewhere you cancomfortably view "Pirates of the Caribbean"

The Berlin court had held that, while there could theoretically be cases where a fee received was disproportionate to the success of a film and an artist may be entitled to a supplemental fee, this was not the case here: a dubbing actor was not entitled to “fairness compensation” where his actual contribution was of merely ancillary importance to the film, for example where a film consisted mostly of technical effects, had numerous supporting actors and where the lead actor appears only infrequently. Looking at the German version of the Pirates of the Caribbean, the Berlin court found that it mostly consisted of technical effects, had numerous extras and supporting actors and that the actual contribution of the main actor, and thus of his German voice Mr Orff, was comparatively small. As such, the court concluded that Mr. Orff’s contribution to the films -- while not insubstantial -- was certainly covered by the fee already paid to him.

Forget the cash,just give methe sparrow

On appeal, the BGH disagreed with the Berlin court and held that Mr Orff was indeed entitled to further compensation (case reference I ZR 145/11 of10 May 2012). The BGH took the view that the contribution of a dubbing actor who lends his voice to one of the main characters of a film was not of mere ancillary importance to the overall film and that the fee paid was not a fair consideration for his contribution. Bearing in mind the success of the film, there was a disproportion between the fee paid and the success of the work.

Referring to its earlier case law in relation to the old version of §36 UrhG, the court made it clear that §32a UrhG may indeed be applicable to the work of dubbing actors who lend their voice to main characters of a film, provided their contribution was not merely "marginal". The BGH expressly disagreed with the lower court and found that Jack Sparrow's part and his appearance was more than just of marginal importance.

The court thus clarified that a dubbing actor may be regarded as a "co-author" of a work. In its decision the BGH also provides quite detailed guidance as to when one may assume a disproportion in the sense of §32a UrhG and confirms that financial gains based on distribution of the (dubbed) film abroad can be relevant if the parties have agreed on German law as governing law. The case will now be remitted to the Kammergericht.

4 comments:

Anonymous
said...

Where a film makes a loss at the box-office, it would seem only fair that the producers should be able to recover the dubbing actor's fee from him and moreover invoice him an amount proportional to their losses.

I sometimes have a feeling that all parts are dubbed into German by the same two or three actors, including the cat's. I can't repress a smirk at the thought of a full bench of red robes appraising the artistic merits of a pirate(d?) video in deutscher Fassung.

It wasn't always the case. The East-German DEFA adaptation of foreign language (usually from the USSR) were often works of art in their own right.

Herr Orff probably does require a greater degree of compensation since producers would think twice before giving him any further work in the dubbing industry. For example, and was replaced by David Nathan in "Pirates".

The IPKat's sidebar contents

Want to complain?If you feel that you have been unfairly prevented from posting a comment on one of this weblog's features, here's what you can do about it

The IPKat's cousins: some IP-friendly blogs for youThe IPKat lists his 'family' of IP blogs, some of which focus on specific rights, geographical zones, markets or interests

How many page-views?See how many times the pages of the IPKat weblog have been purr-viewed

The Kat that tweetsToo short to blog? Some news and views are still worth airing, thanks to Twitter

Want to receive the IPKat weblog by email?You can get each post, or a digest, sent direct to your favourite mailbox

Not just any old IPKatEvery so often, this feline creeps into the limelight

The IPKat's RSS feeding arrangementsFeedburner and all those other things ...

What you've been sayingHere are the most recent readers' comments on the IPKat's posts

The IPKat's Greatest Hits!Here are the five posts on the IPKat's weblog that have received the most attention from readers over the past 30 days

Has the Kat got your tongue?Some translation facilities for readers whose first language is not English, or who are just plain masochistic

Creative Commons licenceYou too can make use of this blog's contents, if you follow the rules

The IPKat ArchiveAncient posts, going back to June 2003

Want to complain?

If you have posted a comment to one of our blogposts and it hasn't appeared, it may be because it doesn't match our criteria for moderation -- essentially that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should be relevant to the blogpost on which they purport to comment.

If you feel that your comment should have been moderated, please email the IPKat at theipkat@gmail.com and let him know, since it may be that your comment has been misdirected into the Blogger software's Spam file.

In the event that there has been no software malfunction and that your post has been rejected, if you want to appeal against this decision please contact either (i) Dr Danny Friedmann of theIP Dragonweblog (ipdragon@gmail.com) or (ii) Professor Dennis Crouch of the Patently-O weblog (dcrouch@patentlyo.com). Danny or Dennis will review your complaint, preserving the confidentiality of your identity and will let both you and us know whether your complaint is justified.

If your complaint relates to bias or distortion, the IPKat suggests that you contact him initially, bearing in mind that he and Merpel are generally willing to host pieces by guest contributors even when their opinions are at odds with those of this blog's contributors.